Who's "we"? Not all Farkers live in the US. I don't, and although practically everyone where I live owns guns, violent crime is almost non- existent. Culture determines the propensity of any given people to violence, not the availability of weaponry or lack thereof.

manimal2878:lordjupiter: manimal2878: poot_rootbeer: Pokey.Clyde: Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?

Let me preface this by saying that changes to our cultural love affair with The Gun cannot be imposed by force of government. It will take generations, but the only way we're going to get our firearm death rate down to the rest of the civilized world's is if the population voluntarily chooses disarmament.

That being said, "laws that would have prevented his mother from legally obtaining those guns in the first place" is a simple and valid answer to your question.

Would a law that would prevent somebody from purchasing alcohol be a valid way to stop drunk driving accidents that result in death? I think it is, but most people don't drive drunk, they enjoy alcohol legally and don't hurt anybody. To me, same thing with guns. Banning things will prevent it being used for evil, but it also stops people from enjoying the use of whatever is banned for whatever legal purposes as well. It also creates a black market for that item.

Do those that wish to ban guns also see banning alcohol as acceptable? And if not, how is it different that guns, it is used really only for fun, like guns used for target shooting or whatever, and doesn't even have the self defense angle that can be applied to guns. Statistically I bet far more people are killed by alcohol than guns, but I'm just guessing.

What part of "guns are guns and not something else" don't you understand?

I asked reasonable questions, if you don't want to address them then fark off.

We're discussing guns, not alcohol or cars or black-tipped reef sharks. Stop trying to deflect and use the "Why aren't people also talking about this thing?!" smokescreen.

manimal2878:rohar: lordjupiter: You're just speculating and deflecting, and again abusing statistics.

Can you show me a correlation between the passage of any gun control law in America in the last 50 years and a positive variance in gun crime? I checked the numbers, on a national level it does not exist. The same can be said of the Chicago and D.C. gun bans.

You have an interesting assertion, and on it's face it makes sense. History shows it'll never work.

It's an emotional topic, trying to talk about it rationally and point out that tragedies like this are a statistical anomaly makes you look like a cold uncaring bastard.

The reason the 90s AWB was allowed to sunset was precisely because it did nothing to show a clear decline in crime had it worked, they would have not let it sunset and would have made a huge political point of it's working.

Sigh. You are correct, being rational after a tragedy like this can come off as heartless. But it doesn't have to be. Gun regulation has done nothing to our murder rate over the past 50 years. Legislation that closes the income gap, that increases employment, that increases feelings of social inclusion have. We can improve things by any number of actions. Gun control, from historical evidence, has no impact.

So tell me who's heartless. Someone who wants to repeat a known failed path or someone who would rather pursue a path that's proven to reduce violence and murders?

There are countries with low gun ownership and low violent crime.There are countries with low gun ownership and high violent crime.There are countries with high gun ownership and low violent crime.There are NO countries with high gun ownership and high violent crime.

Have you looked into the country that we live in?

Gun ownership: the US has the highest # of guns per resident (2007)

Gun violence: the US has the 8th highest firearm homicide rate

Yes, but I'm concerned about all violent crime. It's a foregone conclusion that more gun owners equals more gun violence.

NFA weapons WERE NOT BEING USED IN CRIMES. AT ALL. What does that make the Hughes amendment? Why solve a problem that doesn't exist? That doesn't make any sense. What does make sense was that the Hughes amendment was PURELY PUNITIVE. It was punishing people who had done nothing wrong for no reason. None. Whatsoever.

So what do you want? To solve another problem that doesn't exist? To pass another purely punitive law that will make any progress on gun control absolutely impossible after the next decade full of needlessly dead children because the legislation that was passed was just as useless as the Clinton Ban because you've alienated gun owners?

Whatever, you don't want any solutions, you just want to punish people. Enjoy your spree shootings.

lordjupiter:manimal2878: lordjupiter: manimal2878: lordjupiter: manimal2878: poot_rootbeer: Pokey.Clyde: Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?

Let me preface this by saying that changes to our cultural love affair with The Gun cannot be imposed by force of government. It will take generations, but the only way we're going to get our firearm death rate down to the rest of the civilized world's is if the population voluntarily chooses disarmament.

That being said, "laws that would have prevented his mother from legally obtaining those guns in the first place" is a simple and valid answer to your question.

Would a law that would prevent somebody from purchasing alcohol be a valid way to stop drunk driving accidents that result in death? I think it is, but most people don't drive drunk, they enjoy alcohol legally and don't hurt anybody. To me, same thing with guns. Banning things will prevent it being used for evil, but it also stops people from enjoying the use of whatever is banned for whatever legal purposes as well. It also creates a black market for that item.

Do those that wish to ban guns also see banning alcohol as acceptable? And if not, how is it different that guns, it is used really only for fun, like guns used for target shooting or whatever, and doesn't even have the self defense angle that can be applied to guns. Statistically I bet far more people are killed by alcohol than guns, but I'm just guessing.

What part of "guns are guns and not something else" don't you understand?

I asked reasonable questions, if you don't want to address them then fark off.

You sound like a very angry, disturbed person. Maybe someone should take your guns so you don't hurt yourself or anyone else.

You keep interjecting yourself into posts that I have written to other people with flippant and dismissive remarks. Either address the points I was making in the context in which they were made or fark off ...

This is like your tenth post where you fail to directly acknowledge any point I have made, are you just trolling me?

There are countries with low gun ownership and low violent crime.There are countries with low gun ownership and high violent crime.There are countries with high gun ownership and low violent crime.There are NO countries with high gun ownership and high violent crime.

Have you looked into the country that we live in?

Gun ownership: the US has the highest # of guns per resident (2007)

Gun violence: the US has the 8th highest firearm homicide rate

As such tho, those lists don't correlate.Other nations with high ownership rates fall low on the violence list. Many on the high violence side have stronger gun control than we do.

That suggests the US is a statistical anomaly, most likely because of the war on drugs (which looks to be coming to a close).

/This isn't relevant to the topic at any rate./Rampage killings themselves are anomalous, so looking at the statisticals won't give us information on how to predict or prevent them./Looking at the individual incidents, mental health care should be in the spotlight.

rohar:manimal2878: rohar: lordjupiter: You're just speculating and deflecting, and again abusing statistics.

Can you show me a correlation between the passage of any gun control law in America in the last 50 years and a positive variance in gun crime? I checked the numbers, on a national level it does not exist. The same can be said of the Chicago and D.C. gun bans.

You have an interesting assertion, and on it's face it makes sense. History shows it'll never work.

It's an emotional topic, trying to talk about it rationally and point out that tragedies like this are a statistical anomaly makes you look like a cold uncaring bastard.

The reason the 90s AWB was allowed to sunset was precisely because it did nothing to show a clear decline in crime had it worked, they would have not let it sunset and would have made a huge political point of it's working.

Sigh. You are correct, being rational after a tragedy like this can come off as heartless. But it doesn't have to be. Gun regulation has done nothing to our murder rate over the past 50 years. Legislation that closes the income gap, that increases employment, that increases feelings of social inclusion have. We can improve things by any number of actions. Gun control, from historical evidence, has no impact.

So tell me who's heartless. Someone who wants to repeat a known failed path or someone who would rather pursue a path that's proven to reduce violence and murders?

The problem is that a lot of the people who oppose any type of gun control also oppose any type of social spending that might help reduce crime and violence. They don't want to do anything about any of it because it might mean that their taxes will go up and someone somewhere will take advantage of the system and get a free ride.

Doktor_Zhivago:I'm probably late to the party and this has been said already but....Since he cites Norway and Scotland as examples so will IHere's what I dragged up in 2 seconds on teh googles:In Norway, annual firearm homicides total 2009: 9In the United Kingdom (not just Scotland, the entire UK), annual firearm homicides total 2009: 18In the United States, annual firearm homicides total 2009: 9,146

Some extrapolations in case you say "Hey those countries are a lot smaller than ours! That's not a fair comparison!"US has 4.8 times the population of the UK. Assuming they were equally populated the UK then has 87 deaths.US has 60 times the population of Norway which give us 540 deaths in Norway.

We're still 8,519 short.

Yeah their laws really aren't working....

Citations: gunpolicy.org Link

I approximated population numbers per their wikipedia entries:US approx to 300 millionUK approx to 62 millionNorway approx to 5 million

In 2011, Washington State posted a 5.3 per 100,000 gun related homicide rate, Louisiana came in at 11.2 per 100,000. They have virtually the same gun laws. But you're right, it's all about gun regulation.

rohar:lordjupiter: rohar: lordjupiter: You're just speculating and deflecting, and again abusing statistics.

Can you show me a correlation between the passage of any gun control law in America in the last 50 years and a positive variance in gun crime? I checked the numbers, on a national level it does not exist. The same can be said of the Chicago and D.C. gun bans.

You have an interesting assertion, and on it's face it makes sense. History shows it'll never work.

Can you show any correlation between any of your stats and any of your claims?

State by state or city by city gun laws are not good measures of success because of sheer numbers working against them in proportion to the rest of the country especially since they do not have secure borders. Plus those measures were not even in place long enough to make a difference because the pro-gun lobby challenged them in court.

And why do you keep talking about "gun crime" as if all crimes are the same, and all guns are the same? Declining murder rates per capita is not the issue. Suicide is not the issue. These things are all distractions and deflections from the consideration of laws to address these shooting sprees and the types of weapons being used in them. It's not working.

For the record, I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-gun-nut. And the gun-nut tactic of red herrings and reducing to the absurd will not work with me.

If it helps any, I'm hardly a gun nut either. In full disclosure, I own a single rifle. Bolt action so I'm not much of a threat to anything but coyotes and the odd mountain lion. I am a pragmatist though and if people getting shot is the problem, then I'd suggest we save as many as possible. That's why I'm looking at the systemic issues rather than the isolated mass shooting incidents. If we concentrate on the mass shooting incidents, we'll make no impact on the much larger systemic issue. As an example, in 2008 there were 9484 murders by guns in the U.S. There were 19 dead in mass shoot ...

You're missing the forest for the trees. Again, it's not about sheer numerical analysis of body counts per year. It's about specific types of crimes with specific types of factors.

Gang members shooting each other is a separate problem, as are crimes of passion and other circumstances, but the statistics will be blended together, for example. The body count perspective also doesn't factor in the thwarted plots, the instances where the victim survived (as with another school shooting in MD this fall, off the top of my head), or the age of the victims, or the settings.

If there are just two murders in one year, and they both happen to be the President and then his successor the Vice President, would you say there was no problem because "only 2 people were killed by guns this year"? No. Context matters.

If you want to focus on the bigger numbers, go right ahead, but don't deny those of us who want to ALSO focus on the more granular issues do what we do. Do not try to drown the issue with selectively applied statistics because we aren't buying it.

Keizer_Ghidorah:manimal2878: lordjupiter: manimal2878: poot_rootbeer: Pokey.Clyde: Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?

Let me preface this by saying that changes to our cultural love affair with The Gun cannot be imposed by force of government. It will take generations, but the only way we're going to get our firearm death rate down to the rest of the civilized world's is if the population voluntarily chooses disarmament.

That being said, "laws that would have prevented his mother from legally obtaining those guns in the first place" is a simple and valid answer to your question.

Would a law that would prevent somebody from purchasing alcohol be a valid way to stop drunk driving accidents that result in death? I think it is, but most people don't drive drunk, they enjoy alcohol legally and don't hurt anybody. To me, same thing with guns. Banning things will prevent it being used for evil, but it also stops people from enjoying the use of whatever is banned for whatever legal purposes as well. It also creates a black market for that item.

Do those that wish to ban guns also see banning alcohol as acceptable? And if not, how is it different that guns, it is used really only for fun, like guns used for target shooting or whatever, and doesn't even have the self defense angle that can be applied to guns. Statistically I bet far more people are killed by alcohol than guns, but I'm just guessing.

What part of "guns are guns and not something else" don't you understand?

I asked reasonable questions, if you don't want to address them then fark off.

We're discussing guns, not alcohol or cars or black-tipped reef sharks. Stop trying to deflect and use the "Why aren't people also talking about this thing?!" smokescreen.

It's not a smoke screen and it's not deflecting. It's called an analogy. I'm to talk about similar things from a different perspective. Banning something is banning something. If there is logic to do it one case shouldn't it be just as logical to do it in another similar case, and if not what are the differences.

rohar:manimal2878: rohar: lordjupiter: You're just speculating and deflecting, and again abusing statistics.

Can you show me a correlation between the passage of any gun control law in America in the last 50 years and a positive variance in gun crime? I checked the numbers, on a national level it does not exist. The same can be said of the Chicago and D.C. gun bans.

You have an interesting assertion, and on it's face it makes sense. History shows it'll never work.

It's an emotional topic, trying to talk about it rationally and point out that tragedies like this are a statistical anomaly makes you look like a cold uncaring bastard.

The reason the 90s AWB was allowed to sunset was precisely because it did nothing to show a clear decline in crime had it worked, they would have not let it sunset and would have made a huge political point of it's working.

Sigh. You are correct, being rational after a tragedy like this can come off as heartless. But it doesn't have to be. Gun regulation has done nothing to our murder rate over the past 50 years. Legislation that closes the income gap, that increases employment, that increases feelings of social inclusion have. We can improve things by any number of actions. Gun control, from historical evidence, has no impact.

So tell me who's heartless. Someone who wants to repeat a known failed path or someone who would rather pursue a path that's proven to reduce violence and murders?

You're not dealing with proof, you're dealing with interpretation of incomplete data.

None of the factors you mentioned were in play in CT.

And if we're talking historical evidence, why don't we look at the "wild west". How were things back then? Is that what you want?

NFA weapons WERE NOT BEING USED IN CRIMES. AT ALL. What does that make the Hughes amendment? Why solve a problem that doesn't exist? That doesn't make any sense. What does make sense was that the Hughes amendment was PURELY PUNITIVE. It was punishing people who had done nothing wrong for no reason. None. Whatsoever.

So what do you want? To solve another problem that doesn't exist? To pass another purely punitive law that will make any progress on gun control absolutely impossible after the next decade full of needlessly dead children because the legislation that was passed was just as useless as the Clinton Ban because you've alienated gun owners?

Whatever, you don't want any solutions, you just want to punish people. Enjoy your spree shootings.

yes, i am the cause of spree shootings because i point out that your desire for a fun, fully auto weapon for under 50000 dollars isn't at all a priority, nor do i see that aspect of the status quo to be a bad thing.

CT: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, murders his mother and uses her legally purchased guns to kill lots of people.

China: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, picks up a knife and stabs a lot of people.

Auroa: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, legally obtains weapons that he would not have been able to get if he received the proper care kills lots of people.

VTech: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, legally obtains weapons that he would not have been able to get if he received the proper care kills lots of people.

I could keep doing this, but I' m sure you see the common thread. If the goal of society, any society, is stop these kinds of acts then dealing with the common thread of mental health would be far more effective then banning guns.

So I ask again. Do you want to solve the problem or further an agenda?

See, the problem is that guns are something people can be impassioned about. They're phallic, make bright flashes and loud noises and cause violence, which is awesome! Talking about the poor state of our mental health care systems is boring and depressing and doesn't involve giant explosions of light and sound.

Pincy:rohar: manimal2878: rohar: lordjupiter: You're just speculating and deflecting, and again abusing statistics.

Can you show me a correlation between the passage of any gun control law in America in the last 50 years and a positive variance in gun crime? I checked the numbers, on a national level it does not exist. The same can be said of the Chicago and D.C. gun bans.

You have an interesting assertion, and on it's face it makes sense. History shows it'll never work.

It's an emotional topic, trying to talk about it rationally and point out that tragedies like this are a statistical anomaly makes you look like a cold uncaring bastard.

The reason the 90s AWB was allowed to sunset was precisely because it did nothing to show a clear decline in crime had it worked, they would have not let it sunset and would have made a huge political point of it's working.

Sigh. You are correct, being rational after a tragedy like this can come off as heartless. But it doesn't have to be. Gun regulation has done nothing to our murder rate over the past 50 years. Legislation that closes the income gap, that increases employment, that increases feelings of social inclusion have. We can improve things by any number of actions. Gun control, from historical evidence, has no impact.

So tell me who's heartless. Someone who wants to repeat a known failed path or someone who would rather pursue a path that's proven to reduce violence and murders?

The problem is that a lot of the people who oppose any type of gun control also oppose any type of social spending that might help reduce crime and violence. They don't want to do anything about any of it because it might mean that their taxes will go up and someone somewhere will take advantage of the system and get a free ride.

BINGO!

So why is everyone harping on gun control (which has had no impact on the situation over the past 50 years) and not chasing known solutions?

Pincy:rohar: manimal2878: rohar: lordjupiter: You're just speculating and deflecting, and again abusing statistics.

Can you show me a correlation between the passage of any gun control law in America in the last 50 years and a positive variance in gun crime? I checked the numbers, on a national level it does not exist. The same can be said of the Chicago and D.C. gun bans.

You have an interesting assertion, and on it's face it makes sense. History shows it'll never work.

It's an emotional topic, trying to talk about it rationally and point out that tragedies like this are a statistical anomaly makes you look like a cold uncaring bastard.

The reason the 90s AWB was allowed to sunset was precisely because it did nothing to show a clear decline in crime had it worked, they would have not let it sunset and would have made a huge political point of it's working.

Sigh. You are correct, being rational after a tragedy like this can come off as heartless. But it doesn't have to be. Gun regulation has done nothing to our murder rate over the past 50 years. Legislation that closes the income gap, that increases employment, that increases feelings of social inclusion have. We can improve things by any number of actions. Gun control, from historical evidence, has no impact.

So tell me who's heartless. Someone who wants to repeat a known failed path or someone who would rather pursue a path that's proven to reduce violence and murders?

The problem is that a lot of the people who oppose any type of gun control also oppose any type of social spending that might help reduce crime and violence. They don't want to do anything about any of it because it might mean that their taxes will go up and someone somewhere will take advantage of the system and get a free ride.

Well despite what it may sound like in this thread I'm not that person, about the only thing I have in common with any republican or conservative is that I believe that people should be allowed to own guns. And I'm not opposed to all gun control. I'm opposed to confiscation and banning guns. I think waiting periods, background checks, classes and licensing are completely fair. I also think it is completely fair that you be required to keep your guns locked in a safe when not using them, and your ammo in a second safe.

Who's "we"? Not all Farkers live in the US. I don't, and although practically everyone where I live owns guns, violent crime is almost non- existent. Culture determines the propensity of any given people to violence, not the availability of weaponry or lack thereof.

Can you show me a correlation between the passage of any gun control law in America in the last 50 years and a positive variance in gun crime? I checked the numbers, on a national level it does not exist. The same can be said of the Chicago and D.C. gun bans.

You have an interesting assertion, and on it's face it makes sense. History shows it'll never work.

It's an emotional topic, trying to talk about it rationally and point out that tragedies like this are a statistical anomaly makes you look like a cold uncaring bastard.

The reason the 90s AWB was allowed to sunset was precisely because it did nothing to show a clear decline in crime had it worked, they would have not let it sunset and would have made a huge political point of it's working.

Sigh. You are correct, being rational after a tragedy like this can come off as heartless. But it doesn't have to be. Gun regulation has done nothing to our murder rate over the past 50 years. Legislation that closes the income gap, that increases employment, that increases feelings of social inclusion have. We can improve things by any number of actions. Gun control, from historical evidence, has no impact.

So tell me who's heartless. Someone who wants to repeat a known failed path or someone who would rather pursue a path that's proven to reduce violence and murders?

The problem is that a lot of the people who oppose any type of gun control also oppose any type of social spending that might help reduce crime and violence. They don't want to do anything about any of it because it might mean that their taxes will go up and someone somewhere will take advantage of the system and get a free ride.

BINGO!

So why is everyone harping on gun control (which has had no impact on the situation over the past 50 years) and not chasing known solutions?

Because that's not an accurate representation of what's going on.

What are the "known solutions"? Where is the proof? Why is it that the factors you've listed in previous posts as target issues seem to have no bearing on these mass shootings, and in fact potentially enable them by providing access to more expensive weaponry? Why are we seeing that improvements in those factors do nothing to reduce extremism and terrorism if they're "known solutions"?

Once again, this is just moving away from the issue to something else.

lordjupiter:You're missing the forest for the trees. Again, it's not about sheer numerical analysis of body counts per year. It's about specific types of crimes with specific types of factors.

Gang members shooting each other is a separate problem, as are crimes of passion and other circumstances, but the statistics will be blended together, for example. The body count perspective also doesn't factor in the thwarted plots, the instances where the victim survived (as with another school shooting in MD this fall, off the top of my head), or the age of the victims, or the settings.

If there are just two murders in one year, and they both happen to be the President and then his successor the Vice President, would you say there was no problem because "only 2 people were killed by guns this year"? No. Context matters.

If you want to focus on the bigger numbers, go right ahead, but don't deny those of us who want to ALSO focus on the more granular issues do what we do. Do not try to drown the issue with selectively applied statistics because we aren't buying it.

Ah, but you seem to think these trees are different from the Forrest. They're not. You know why we don't see mass shootings in Malaysia (their gun control is pretty feirce compared to ours, but many still have guns). It's because they don't murder people. Period. They didn't before their gun regulation and they wont tomorrow. Much the same can be said about Britain, Norway, France etc. They were very low murder rate countries, decided to pass gun regulation, and nothing changed. They were still very low murder rate countries.

The reason for this is NOT gun control, but believing that their neighbors must be taken care of. If we worked to do the same, I'd assert not only would our murder rate as a whole go down, but our mass killings as well. Passing gun legislation is pissing in the wind. Statistics from our own history as well as all those I mentioned shows as much.

NFA weapons WERE NOT BEING USED IN CRIMES. AT ALL. What does that make the Hughes amendment? Why solve a problem that doesn't exist? That doesn't make any sense. What does make sense was that the Hughes amendment was PURELY PUNITIVE. It was punishing people who had done nothing wrong for no reason. None. Whatsoever.

So what do you want? To solve another problem that doesn't exist? To pass another purely punitive law that will make any progress on gun control absolutely impossible after the next decade full of needlessly dead children because the legislation that was passed was just as useless as the Clinton Ban because you've alienated gun owners?

Whatever, you don't want any solutions, you just want to punish people. Enjoy your spree shootings.

yes, i am the cause of spree shootings because i point out that your desire for a fun, fully auto weapon for under 50000 dollars isn't at all a priority, nor do i see that aspect of the status quo to be a bad thing.

sweet jesus, wtf is wrong with you?

The entire reason the Gun Control conversation is so impossible is because the only things anti-gun people are interested in are purely punitive measures. Punishing ALL the gun owners, to point of failing to address the actual problem completely. The Hughes amendment was a huge example of that, as was the Clinton AWB. Nobody cared about actually solving gun violence, it was just about punishing gun owners.

I'm offering a solution that would actually solve the problem. Instituting an unprecedented and unless popular among gun owners impossible level of control that you wouldn't otherwise get. The only trade off is that we're getting rid of measures that are purely punitive. Things that literally do nothing but stick it to them gun owners. They don't prevent any deaths, any crime, anything.

rohar:lordjupiter: You're missing the forest for the trees. Again, it's not about sheer numerical analysis of body counts per year. It's about specific types of crimes with specific types of factors.

Gang members shooting each other is a separate problem, as are crimes of passion and other circumstances, but the statistics will be blended together, for example. The body count perspective also doesn't factor in the thwarted plots, the instances where the victim survived (as with another school shooting in MD this fall, off the top of my head), or the age of the victims, or the settings.

If there are just two murders in one year, and they both happen to be the President and then his successor the Vice President, would you say there was no problem because "only 2 people were killed by guns this year"? No. Context matters.

If you want to focus on the bigger numbers, go right ahead, but don't deny those of us who want to ALSO focus on the more granular issues do what we do. Do not try to drown the issue with selectively applied statistics because we aren't buying it.

Ah, but you seem to think these trees are different from the Forrest. They're not. You know why we don't see mass shootings in Malaysia (their gun control is pretty feirce compared to ours, but many still have guns). It's because they don't murder people. Period. They didn't before their gun regulation and they wont tomorrow. Much the same can be said about Britain, Norway, France etc. They were very low murder rate countries, decided to pass gun regulation, and nothing changed. They were still very low murder rate countries.

The reason for this is NOT gun control, but believing that their neighbors must be taken care of. If we worked to do the same, I'd assert not only would our murder rate as a whole go down, but our mass killings as well. Passing gun legislation is pissing in the wind. Statistics from our own history as well as all those I mentioned shows as much.

And you don't see how FIRST removing some of the worst "tools" for murder can achieve that?

How ironic that the same people who were correctly opposed to the Patriot Act because it involved trading away freedom for security are proposing exactly the same thing when it comes to guns... and all in the name of the children, of course, so if you happen to be a law- abiding gun owner who likes to hunt or shoot targets this means you are a potential slaughterer of grade- schoolers -- and if you're in the NRA you may as well be a member of the KKK.

Wake up, you sheep. Laws based on dead children are always based on emotion, have no rational justification in the slightest and are aimed at expanding government power at either your expense or that of your equally harmless neighbour. For God's sake educate yourselves about the history of totalitarianism over the past hundred years and its many dozens of millions of dead. You cannot trust the State to look after you. Of course the government wants you disarmed, because it wants to have the monopoly on the use of force. Once you grant it that, you are utterly powerless. Do not fall prey to the superstition that those who govern us are morally or intellectually superior to the common mass of the people: this is a dangerous delusion. Learn to think critically.

lordjupiter:Because that's not an accurate representation of what's going on.

What are the "known solutions"? Where is the proof? Why is it that the factors you've listed in previous posts as target issues seem to have no bearing on these mass shootings, and in fact potentially enable them by providing access to more expensive weaponry? Why are we seeing that improvements in those factors do nothing to reduce extremism and terrorism if they're "known solutions"?

Once again, this is just moving away from the issue to something else.

Not at all, I'll gladly cite correlation, it's sitting on my screen in notepad, as soon as you cite any correlation between any gun regulation and a reduction in gun related crime in America in the past 50 years. I'll wait, I'm a patient man.

There are countries with low gun ownership and low violent crime.There are countries with low gun ownership and high violent crime.There are countries with high gun ownership and low violent crime.There are NO countries with high gun ownership and high violent crime.

Have you looked into the country that we live in?

Gun ownership: the US has the highest # of guns per resident (2007)

Gun violence: the US has the 8th highest firearm homicide rate

Yes, but I'm concerned about all violent crime. It's a foregone conclusion that more gun owners equals more gun violence.

Herm. I should have read more carefully. I really was trying to find a cite that best matched the category you described (threw away homicide cite because you specified all violent crime, but didn't notice you weren't talking about firearm crime exclusively).

lordjupiter:rohar: lordjupiter: You're missing the forest for the trees. Again, it's not about sheer numerical analysis of body counts per year. It's about specific types of crimes with specific types of factors.

Gang members shooting each other is a separate problem, as are crimes of passion and other circumstances, but the statistics will be blended together, for example. The body count perspective also doesn't factor in the thwarted plots, the instances where the victim survived (as with another school shooting in MD this fall, off the top of my head), or the age of the victims, or the settings.

If there are just two murders in one year, and they both happen to be the President and then his successor the Vice President, would you say there was no problem because "only 2 people were killed by guns this year"? No. Context matters.

If you want to focus on the bigger numbers, go right ahead, but don't deny those of us who want to ALSO focus on the more granular issues do what we do. Do not try to drown the issue with selectively applied statistics because we aren't buying it.

Ah, but you seem to think these trees are different from the Forrest. They're not. You know why we don't see mass shootings in Malaysia (their gun control is pretty feirce compared to ours, but many still have guns). It's because they don't murder people. Period. They didn't before their gun regulation and they wont tomorrow. Much the same can be said about Britain, Norway, France etc. They were very low murder rate countries, decided to pass gun regulation, and nothing changed. They were still very low murder rate countries.

The reason for this is NOT gun control, but believing that their neighbors must be taken care of. If we worked to do the same, I'd assert not only would our murder rate as a whole go down, but our mass killings as well. Passing gun legislation is pissing in the wind. Statistics from our own history as well as all those I mentioned shows as much.

And you don't see how F ...

So you can show all of us, at any time in the past 50 years, where this had any affect? Surely it's been done, shouldn't be too hard to come up with.

iq_in_binary:The entire reason the Gun Control conversation is so impossible is because the only things anti-gun people are interested in are purely punitive measures.

yes, i am not at all concerned with you getting a budget automatic weapon.

it is not at all on the landscape of concerns, desires, or things i think need corrected.

the fact you think of this as a bargaining chip or a path to getting what you want, that you deserve something in trade for regulations is the whole crux of the biscuit, but...again, i can neither explain to you the abject selfishness of it, nor disabuse you of it.

but it seems like you expect me to ignore it, too. somewhere in this, i've been trying to repeal the 2nd amendment, i've been the cause of spree shootings, and i just want to punish gun owners (which would be self punishment, and an entirely different thread) - in none of this are you actually representing what i have said.

i'll say it again.

i don't give a shiat about your desire for a sub 50g auto. i just don't.

that you feel you need recompense for gun regulations is even further down the slope of my own personal Mount Giveashiat.

Phins:You gun advocates are getting tiresome. You "no one single thing will work 100% so do nothing" argument is particularly tiresome. Vaccines aren't 100% effective, but we still use them. Airbags and seatbelts don't prevent all deaths in accidents, but we still use them because they're highly effective. It's called harm reduction and reasonable, civilized people are in favor of it.

Since you're all such perfect gun owners, well-versed in every type of firearm and expert marksmen, what is your big objection to setting a high bar for firearm (and ammunition) purchase? The purpose of a gun is to kill; is it really so unreasonable to ask that there are restrictions on purchasing one? Before you can get a driver's license, you have to prove that you know traffic laws and can operate a motor vehicle. If you develop an illness that prohibits you from being a safe driver, the doctor contacts the DMV and your license is suspended. Why shouldn't there be requirements for guns? Or do you object to driver's licenses and vehicle registration because the government is keeping a list and knows where you live and what kind of car you drive so they could come and take away your car?

I would think that your fear of a gun ban would make you in favor of doing everything possible to keep guns out of irresponsible hands. That's why people object to guns. It's not because you use them for hunting or protecting livestock; it's because criminal use them to kill human beings. The more we can do to reduce the killing, the less call for a gun ban.

I don't want a gun but I don't think they should be banned either. People like to hunt, ranchers and farmers need them to protect livestock, people have jobs that take them into unsafe areas, etc. There are legitimate uses for guns. Why do you object so strongly to measures designed to restrict them to legitimate owners and keep them away from people who want to use them to kill human beings? Are you also opposed to building and electrical codes that ...

The rules everyone cites under the "treat them like cars" analogy are the rules for driving a car on public roads. There's no law that requires me to be licensed or register the car if I buy it only to store and use on my private property, or tow it to a friend's house to drive around in his backyard.

Almost all of the rules cited already apply if I want to get a carry permit and actually walk around town with it loaded in public, like taking a safety class and a proficiency test. The rules for doing something dangerous in public are always more stringent, as they should be.

The other problem is that if you make ownership contingent upon a subjective approval, it tends to get abused. Many states in the north east are technically "may issue" where the local sheriff or someone similar signs off on ownership or carry permits for at least some class of firearms. In practice however, the government have known unofficial policies of not approving anyone (or worse, not approving anyone who isn't politically connected), which results in a defacto ban, with no due process recourse.

Remember don't-fly lists? The same politicians who complained years ago about their constituents (and IIRC in at least one case, one of their colleagues) ending up on it were complaining this morning that we let people who are on it buy guns. Imagine the outcry from both sides of the aisle if we didn't let people on that list vote.

rohar:Doktor_Zhivago: I'm probably late to the party and this has been said already but....Since he cites Norway and Scotland as examples so will IHere's what I dragged up in 2 seconds on teh googles:In Norway, annual firearm homicides total 2009: 9In the United Kingdom (not just Scotland, the entire UK), annual firearm homicides total 2009: 18In the United States, annual firearm homicides total 2009: 9,146

Some extrapolations in case you say "Hey those countries are a lot smaller than ours! That's not a fair comparison!"US has 4.8 times the population of the UK. Assuming they were equally populated the UK then has 87 deaths.US has 60 times the population of Norway which give us 540 deaths in Norway.

We're still 8,519 short.

Yeah their laws really aren't working....

Citations: gunpolicy.org Link

I approximated population numbers per their wikipedia entries:US approx to 300 millionUK approx to 62 millionNorway approx to 5 million

In 2011, Washington State posted a 5.3 per 100,000 gun related homicide rate, Louisiana came in at 11.2 per 100,000. They have virtually the same gun laws. But you're right, it's all about gun regulation.

Maybe because there's less people that own guns in Washington than there are in Louisiana even though Louisiana has less population?

The article is bullshiat, pal. It cites alleged studies from the 70s and then launches into the predictable "smaller, localized government" claptrap found in every single piece of libertarian propaganda.

and CRACKED!?

The single listed source for that article is a dead link. And searching the site just for the word "murders" returns nothing. However, the cracked article you listed is the first returned item when you google "murders wild west".

In recent years it has become fashionable for historians (such as Robert Dykstra and Michael Bellesiles) to claim that it was a myth that the Old West was particularly violent. Notheless, other historians, such as Clare McKanna and David Peterson Del Mar, have reported very high rates of homicide in the West in the late 19th century (compared to current rates in the US).

Who is right?

Roth carefully reviews the data and confirms the work of McKanna and Peterson Del Mar, showing it to be consistent with recent work by Kevin Mullen, John Boessenecker, and (the late, great) Eric Monkkonen, .

Roth concludes:

Because the counties in McKanna's study reflect the diversity of rural southern and central California as a whole, there is reason to believe that the homicide rate in the southern two-thirds of the state (excluding San Francisco) was between 66 and 80 per 100,000 adults per year-the 99% confidence interval for McKanna's seven counties combined. If we include San Francisco and Los Angeles counties, the interval for all of southern and central California was between 60 and 70 per 100,000 adults per year-seven times the homicide rate in the United States today (and 28.7 standard deviations away). An adult exposed to that rate for sixteen years stood a 1 in 96 chance of being murdered, and an adult exposed to that rate for 45 years would have stood a 1 in 34 chance of being murdered. We cannot make assumptions about the homicide rate in northern California, which has yet to be studied. But with McKanna's study alone, we have 29 percent of the population of southern and central California (38 percent outside San Francisco); and with the addition of Mullen's study of San Francisco and Monkkonen's of Los Angeles, we have 57 percent of the population. The claim that the area was not unusually homicidal is statistically and arithmetically impossible.

The data of Peterson Del Mar and McKanna show that there is no such thing as a "fallacy of small numbers." The laws of probability make it possible to predict the character of a large population from a sample of surprisingly modest size, as long as that sample is representative of the population as a whole. That is why national opinion polls of 1,500 or 3,000 potential voters can be so accurate, even for subgroups of the population. That is the genius of statistics.

Indeed!

How homicidal was the Old West? According to the best historical evidence today, the answer is: Extremely Homicidal. Thus, another bit of academic folklore bites the dust.

Doktor_Zhivago:rohar: Doktor_Zhivago: I'm probably late to the party and this has been said already but....Since he cites Norway and Scotland as examples so will IHere's what I dragged up in 2 seconds on teh googles:In Norway, annual firearm homicides total 2009: 9In the United Kingdom (not just Scotland, the entire UK), annual firearm homicides total 2009: 18In the United States, annual firearm homicides total 2009: 9,146

Some extrapolations in case you say "Hey those countries are a lot smaller than ours! That's not a fair comparison!"US has 4.8 times the population of the UK. Assuming they were equally populated the UK then has 87 deaths.US has 60 times the population of Norway which give us 540 deaths in Norway.

We're still 8,519 short.

Yeah their laws really aren't working....

Citations: gunpolicy.org Link

I approximated population numbers per their wikipedia entries:US approx to 300 millionUK approx to 62 millionNorway approx to 5 million

In 2011, Washington State posted a 5.3 per 100,000 gun related homicide rate, Louisiana came in at 11.2 per 100,000. They have virtually the same gun laws. But you're right, it's all about gun regulation.Maybe because there's less people that own guns in Washington than there are in Louisiana even though Louisiana has less population?

rohar:lordjupiter: Because that's not an accurate representation of what's going on.

What are the "known solutions"? Where is the proof? Why is it that the factors you've listed in previous posts as target issues seem to have no bearing on these mass shootings, and in fact potentially enable them by providing access to more expensive weaponry? Why are we seeing that improvements in those factors do nothing to reduce extremism and terrorism if they're "known solutions"?

Once again, this is just moving away from the issue to something else.

Not at all, I'll gladly cite correlation, it's sitting on my screen in notepad, as soon as you cite any correlation between any gun regulation and a reduction in gun related crime in America in the past 50 years. I'll wait, I'm a patient man.

You can wait all you want. I've already addressed this so you can stop grandstanding on it.

heap:i don't give a shiat about your desire for a sub 50g auto. i just don't.

What about a .30-30, a .303, a .308, a .270, a .223, for that matter a mere .22? Which caliber is small enough to be satisfactory to your lordship? Do any of the traditional hunting rounds qualify for special dispensation, or should all of the millions of decent ordinary people who use them be subject to harsh punishments in a "gun- free" world? As usual, once you scratch a "progressive", you find a Stalinist: gun control is really about people control.

lordjupiter:rohar: lordjupiter: Because that's not an accurate representation of what's going on.

What are the "known solutions"? Where is the proof? Why is it that the factors you've listed in previous posts as target issues seem to have no bearing on these mass shootings, and in fact potentially enable them by providing access to more expensive weaponry? Why are we seeing that improvements in those factors do nothing to reduce extremism and terrorism if they're "known solutions"?

Once again, this is just moving away from the issue to something else.

Not at all, I'll gladly cite correlation, it's sitting on my screen in notepad, as soon as you cite any correlation between any gun regulation and a reduction in gun related crime in America in the past 50 years. I'll wait, I'm a patient man.

You can wait all you want. I've already addressed this so you can stop grandstanding on it.

You've said "I believe" repeatedly. Strangely history flies in the face of your assertion. I'm not grandstanding, just trying to beat through your thick skull a pathway to reducing these incidents. But you came up with a conclusion, ignored all data and went with it. There's probably little I can do now.

This conversation reminds me of having a rational discussion with a TeaBagger.

whidbey:EvilRacistNaziFascist: Social spending has nothing to do with the rate of violent crime. Those who commit violent crimes almost always do so for selfish personal gain.

That's a bit dishonest. The argument is that social programs would help to curb violence, and we aren't anywhere near what we need to be spending in terms of 100% success.

Those who commit violent crimes almost always do so for selfish personal gain.

What if it's "personal gain" because they believe they don't have any hope?

A bit dishonest? It's bullshiat. Not that I'm arguing with you, whidbey, I just want to be clear that BlatantTrollMoronFishcakes is talking provable bullshiat given that there is a well-established correlation between violence and poverty.

heap:iq_in_binary: The entire reason the Gun Control conversation is so impossible is because the only things anti-gun people are interested in are purely punitive measures.

yes, i am not at all concerned with you getting a budget automatic weapon.

it is not at all on the landscape of concerns, desires, or things i think need corrected.

the fact you think of this as a bargaining chip or a path to getting what you want, that you deserve something in trade for regulations is the whole crux of the biscuit, but...again, i can neither explain to you the abject selfishness of it, nor disabuse you of it.

but it seems like you expect me to ignore it, too. somewhere in this, i've been trying to repeal the 2nd amendment, i've been the cause of spree shootings, and i just want to punish gun owners (which would be self punishment, and an entirely different thread) - in none of this are you actually representing what i have said.

i'll say it again.

i don't give a shiat about your desire for a sub 50g auto. i just don't.

that you feel you need recompense for gun regulations is even further down the slope of my own personal Mount Giveashiat.

You feel that the removal of purely punitive measures that accomplish absolutely nothing is a deal breaker when trying to actually solve the problem of gun violence. You believe that ANY concessions, no matter how small, even if it's a removal of something that is purely punitive, purely, with no other purpose than to punish people for things that they have not done, who have already agreed to the insane amount of hoops they have to jump through to enjoy their hobby in a responsible manner, and who had demonstrated enormous discipline and diligence in doing so (witnessed by the fact that NO NFA WEAPONS HAVE BEEN USED IN CRIMES SINCE NFA WAS INTRODUCED) being punished for absolutely no reason, as a deal breaker.

Let's put it this way, responsible gun owners say they want to work to fix the problem (unless you have no recollection of a day where the NRA wasn't a de facto arm of the Republican party), come to the table. They get kicked in the nuts. That would be the NFA, except it worked, so everybody grumbled but stopped biatching about it. They come to the table again, and get kicked in the nuts. This shot did absolutely nothing to solve the problem. This would be the GCA. They come to the table again, another nut shot. Does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. This would be FOPA. 2 more nutshots that did nothing to solve the problem later, and we're back at the table.

If you want effective legislation that is actually going to solve the problem, don't expect the support that you are GOING to need for legislation comprehensive enough from gun owners if you aren't willing to address those shots to the nuts you gave them that did absolutely nothing to solve the problem.

But, like I said, and you've shown ready agreement to, anything that isn't purely punitive to even the law abiding among gun owners is off the table, specifically because it isn't purely punitive to gun owners.

You brought up the "wild west" to make a point, not me. I'm sure you wanted us to think of the sort of statistical analysis from that article when you invoked the wild west and not what we see in the movies, which is people getting shot left and right on a daily basis.

Was the "Old West" violent? Scholars have established that it was not as violent as most movies and novels would suggest. Murder was not a daily, weekly, or even monthly occurrence in most small towns or farming, ranching, or mining communities

rohar:lordjupiter: rohar: lordjupiter: Because that's not an accurate representation of what's going on.

What are the "known solutions"? Where is the proof? Why is it that the factors you've listed in previous posts as target issues seem to have no bearing on these mass shootings, and in fact potentially enable them by providing access to more expensive weaponry? Why are we seeing that improvements in those factors do nothing to reduce extremism and terrorism if they're "known solutions"?

Once again, this is just moving away from the issue to something else.

Not at all, I'll gladly cite correlation, it's sitting on my screen in notepad, as soon as you cite any correlation between any gun regulation and a reduction in gun related crime in America in the past 50 years. I'll wait, I'm a patient man.

You can wait all you want. I've already addressed this so you can stop grandstanding on it.

You've said "I believe" repeatedly. Strangely history flies in the face of your assertion. I'm not grandstanding, just trying to beat through your thick skull a pathway to reducing these incidents. But you came up with a conclusion, ignored all data and went with it. There's probably little I can do now.

This conversation reminds me of having a rational discussion with a TeaBagger.

You're awfully smug for someone who hasn't stated a single relevant "fact".

I said earlier: "State by state or city by city gun laws are not good measures of success because of sheer numbers working against them in proportion to the rest of the country especially since they do not have secure borders."

You ARE grandstanding based on a narrow and arbitrary standard of proof. There has not been a good, scientific study of the effects of well-written and well-enforced gun legislation, partly because there haven't really BEEN any such legislation, though some evidence exists that the DC gun ban may have reduced gun-related murders and suicides in the suburbs of DC by 25% while other forms of murder and suicide did not change.

I live in the DC/Baltimore area and there are just farked up areas that have little to do with whether or not something is possible elsewhere. DC never had a chance with any kind of ban because Baltimore is just a short trip up I-95 and the burbs practically overlap, with crime expanding from Baltimore outward as the jobs dried up over the past several decades.

And yet, I know empirical data exists that shows the socioeconomic factors you claim "work" are actually not factors in the types of killing sprees we're talking about. I'm sure your notepad of cut and paste "proof" is more bullshiat about overall demographics applied to general violence and gun statistics, and yet again a dilution and distraction.